1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174 
RIBBLE PROPOSALS ADJOURNED
Page 127
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AHEARING that occupied several hours followed a somewhat late start, on Thursday of last Week, when the North-Western Traffic Commissioners were to have considered numerous applications by Ribble Motor Services, Ltd. The applications were divided into three groups : (a) ordinary-return-ticket modifications ; Cu) eight-day tourist-ticket facilities and (c) other Modifications. There were about 60 objectors to the various proposals. Actually, only the first section was dealt with, the others being adjourned until February 22, at Morecambe. The Commissioners' decision in respect of the ordinary-return-ticket modifications was, reserved.
The primary object of these proposals was to make all return tickets
available for three months, the fares throughout the week generally being made equal to those at present charged from Monday to Friday. The current practice, except where stages link with other traffic areas, is for returns of lower denominations to be available for only one day,. Whilst • higher-fares are charged at the week-end than. during' the week. Noextension of the availability of special cheap day tickets was proposed.
Mr. H. Bottomley (for the Ribble concern) agreed that the proposed alteration was, to some extent, due to . competition. . ri The railways, it was stated, would feel the effect of reduced fares all over the system operated by the Ribble Concern. 'The parallel of the rail excursions was the Ribble contract-carriage work. He submitted that the 'modifications relating to the three-monthly returns should not be sanctioned, for it was not 'possible to see where they were leading
,and even :the Ribble concern had not .shown that it had given proper con_ .sideration of the final effect as a WhqIe. . Pointing out that the average fare 'mentioned by Ribble Motor Services., Ltd., in correspondence was about 4d„ .the chairman (Mr. W. Chamberlain) said that the Commissioners Viewed ..,with some concern certain modifica
tions that represented an increase in the cost of short-distance travel. In reply, it was stated that the special workmen's returns would be retained.
Mr. J. Lustgarten (for the applicant), referring to the objections by the railways (they proved to be the only objectors to the first group, many objections having been withdrawn), asked: "Is there any greater handicap to the development of modern and cheap transport than the railways? The railways must seriously consider whether the public will endure their repeated attempts to obstruct modern progress. The railways avail themselves of the right to come to the Commissioners and to help to maintain a relatively high fare, then they go away and cut these very fares."